Segment 1
Cenk hosting today. Latest on the Hostess debacle. The top executives are asking for $1.8 million bonuses after driving the company into bankruptcy while they laid off all 18,500 workers. Details of the money they hoarded for themselves while making their employees barely get by on meager salaries.
Segment 2
Louis Gohmert is at it again. He claimed that Obama ousted Qaddafi so that Al Qaeda could take over Libya. He also declared that the Obama Admin is getting advice from the Muslim Brotherhood. Romney’s Chief Strategist wrote an op-ed claiming that since Romney won the vote of the richest voters, he won the votes that really counted. Video of Tom Davis talking about the “Underclass voter” came out in full effect. Stuart Stevens went on CBS This Morning to backpedal from his hateful op-ed. The case to eliminate our bad policy of indefinite detentions. Sen Rand Paul, Sen Feinstein, and others led the charge.
Segment 3
Palestine has gained a new status at the UN that threatens Israel, as they could eventually be held responsible for war crimes. Only 9 countries voted against them, including United States and Canada. The Obama Admin is actually negotiating from a Progressive stance. The bad news is that they seem to be wholeheartedly listening to the CEOs they met with. Cenk predicts that the capital gains rate will change, but slightly.
Comments
Let’s not pretend that the Labor Party of Israel is any better, Cenky old boy. They quietly continued the same settlement activity, roughly speaking. The differences are largely cosmetic, as in our parties.
You are absolutely right, the leftist governments in israel have, as a rule, done much more colonization than likud. In fact, being a leftist in an ethnic state, which openly discriminates, is a very questionable thing to begin with. It requires an absurd level of hypocrisy and double think.
hey folks, I have a question. I have heard Cenk say countless times that corporations have the legal responsibility to their shareholders to only care about the bottom line. He might’ve said fiduciary responsibility and I don’t exactly know what that means but I thought that he said a legal responsibility to act only in the interest of shareholders. I spoke to an economist and also an accountant and mentioned this as I took it as fact since Cenk has such a strong legal background. But they both told me that there’s no such legal requirement to the shareholders. Cenk makes this argument so many times and it seems so important to his critique of the way the system works, or doesn’t work, that I really would like to know where this issue lies. Is it true or not true. Does anyone remember exactly what Cenk says in this regard? I would really like to get to the bottom of this. Thanks. Oh, and one more thing what happened to the forms we used to have on the old website? This seems to be so much weaker, the system seems to me so much weaker than the forum we used to have is there any place that members are posting that I don’t know about? Thanks again.
It’s not just Cenk who says that. I’ve heard it a lot. As I understand it, the corporation has a responsibility to do due diligence on the behalf of their shareholders. I think because failure to do so opens the executives up to minority shareholder lawsuits.
After Cenk spoke at the Money Out Of Politics conference, there was a panel discussion there with four women on it, one of whom was Lynn Stout. She wrote a book called
“The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public”
She didn’t talk much at the conference about her book, but I’ve been meaning to read it. Look it up on Amazon.. with the TYT link!
PS You’re right, this place could use the Forums back
I wish the Forums were back too…I liked the on going dialogue on particular topics. BRING’EM BACK!!!
Fiduciary responsibility defined: http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryf/g/fiduciary.htm
Shareholders can sue corporate officers, CEO, CFO, etc., that don’t take advantage of opportunities to maximize profits.
Here’s an example of shareholders of a publicly held company exercising this right: http://allthingsd.com/20121128/five-reasons-why-what-groupons-board-is-evaluating-about-andrew-masons-performance/
Cenk has used the proper legal term, Fiduciary Responsibility, referring to the concept that shareholders can sue corporate officers, CEO, CFO, etc., who don’t take advantage of opportunities to maximize profits.
There are examples online, in google news and elsewhere. I’d post links but each time I do, I get stuck in “Your comment is awaiting moderation” limbo.
Perhaps law students that take certain business law courses (not economists or accountants) are introduced to the concept but it’s definitely real. I’ve worked on wall st since the late 90s and have encountered it in action multiple times.
As people have detailed already, it’s true, corporations must put the shareholders as top priority. It was a system built decades ago. I find it funny you asked an economist and an account about legality. You could have asked a pediatrician and received the same thing. Talk to a corporate lawyer.
I understand Cenk’s anger on bonuses for executives on the bankruptcy of Hostess. In the short-term, it is maddening that they get paid extra but I guess in the long run, it may help out other companies who will buy the brand (assuming they can use their “expertise” to rejuvenate the brand). And maybe this would lead better bargaining power for the union. Yes this may be a stretch though because trickled-down effect is very inefficient and ineffective method to create jobs. So simply put, 1) don’t pay the executives and have an almost impossible time to recover the brand or; 2) pay the executives to have some chance (better than almost impossible) to recover the brand.
Also, I want to know what happens to the Bankruptcy if the executives didn’t get the bonuses. If it means that they won’t stick around, who wants them to stay? Is it the unpaid creditors, the potential buyers or someone else? If it is the creditors then my discussion on trickled-down effect should not be valid but if it is the potential buyers, then the trickled-down effect is a very optimistic outcome.
So either way, not that great for the union.
You make an interesting point, but at the same time I get really tired of the argument that, since 95% of corporations these days are only interested in deals that are so favorable they border on exploitation, we have to accommodate them. May be better to let some of these companies fail so that these executives lower THEIR expectations…
While I was working at Bank of America last year they took our pension away.
Cenk, it wasn’t just the U.S. that started the U.N., it was46 other countries as well.
I was thinking the same thing, that it wasn’t the U.S. alone. But then I found that the U.S. that the earliest concrete plan for a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first coined the term ‘United Nations’ as a term to describe the Allied countries. So we sort of did, but not alone I guess.
sorry for the errors…oops
I was thinking the same thing, that it wasn’t the U.S. alone. But then I found that earliest concrete plan for a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first coined the term ‘United Nations’ as a term to describe the Allied countries. So we sort of did, but not alone I guess.
Our branches are a little singed and weathered, but our root are fairly strong and deep. If I wasn’t for our past recognition of humankind we would not be able to celebrate Palestine’s small victory. Viva Palestine